Military Review

Department of State: Washington will continue to work with Moscow on the INF Treaty

50
Washington believes that the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles is in the sphere of interests of both the United States and the Russian Federation, therefore it remains open for further negotiations, which could alleviate mutual concerns about the implementation of the agreements, reports RIA News statement by Assistant Secretary of State Frank Rose.


Department of State: Washington will continue to work with Moscow on the INF Treaty


“We believe that this agreement is in the interests of both countries, and we will work with Russia to resolve this issue diplomatically ... We continue to discuss this issue with our Russian colleagues on a regular basis,” said Rose at a briefing in Vienna.

According to him, the United States is still "concerned that Russia does not comply with its obligations under the INF Treaty."

At the request of journalists to provide concrete evidence, Rose said: "We have provided our Russian colleagues with a wealth of information on this subject."

“We remain open to the resolution of this (issue) with Russia through diplomatic channels. This agreement is in the interests of the United States, Russia and the Euro-Atlantic space, ”he concluded.

The agency recalls that in early November, Rose announced that Washington was considering “economic and military measures” in connection with Russia's failure to comply with the INF Treaty.
Photos used:
newseek.org
50 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GYGOLA
    GYGOLA 20 November 2015 11: 09 New
    12
    Washington believes that the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate and Shorter-Range Missiles is in the sphere of interests of both the United States and the Russian Federation,
    Oops ... mistake. We are poh. But if you need, offer.
    1. 79807420129
      79807420129 20 November 2015 11: 13 New
      17
      The Americans are again preoccupied .... Do they themselves abide by the agreements? But then they have no equal in their fingers to bend like a fan, go in the ass striped-eared.
      1. oleg-gr
        oleg-gr 20 November 2015 11: 22 New
        +4
        The Americans are doing everything to bring to the fore the tertiary issues. But really important topics - Ukraine, Syria - seem to have been resolved. All rights and obligations are specified in the contract.
        1. iliitchitch
          iliitchitch 20 November 2015 11: 38 New
          12
          Quote: oleg-gr
          The Americans are doing everything to bring to the fore the tertiary issues. But really important topics - Ukraine, Syria - seem to have been resolved. All rights and obligations are specified in the contract.


          No, this is not a tertiary issue. This is most likely a dumb cast in the style of the states on the topic of expanding the scope of the treaty. As far as I remember, RSMD with a range of 500 to 5000 km of land-based are prohibited under the agreement. At the time we were tearing off sea-based (an intelligent man was found, thank God) - you will get a “Caliber” and a ground “Iskander” (up to 500 km), plus old modernized missiles with an increased range of 5300-5500 km. There is something to worry about ghouls.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 20 November 2015 11: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: iliitch
            Sea-based we were torn off in due time (the clever person was found, thank God) - receive "Caliber"

            A cool solution, especially when you consider that winged axes, which threaten us anyway, are mainly in the US Navy. It is also encouraging that we destroyed twice as many RKs as "friends".
            1. iliitchitch
              iliitchitch 20 November 2015 12: 06 New
              +2
              Yes, a cool solution. Firstly, winged axes do not fly at 2500 (and they will only have new ones in the project, they will still be doing it for 7-10 years), and at 1000 km we simply will not let them go to the border. Secondly, one boat less than 1000 tons with a displacement of eight "calibers" will drown any AUG, and they won’t be able to get it. We won "at arm's length." Sarcasm is not entirely clear, SW.Vladimirets.
              1. Vladimirets
                Vladimirets 20 November 2015 12: 18 New
                +6
                Quote: iliitch
                2500 winged axes do not fly

                Some modifications fly.
                Quote: iliitch
                one boat less than 1000 tons with a displacement of eight "calibers" will drown any AUG

                Do you know the Caliber range for surface targets?
                Quote: iliitch
                and they won’t be able to get it.

                AUG will be able to.
                Quote: iliitch
                Sarcasm is not entirely clear, SW.Vladimirets.

                A very simple explanation. Under this agreement, we saw 1800 RK, Americans 800. The calibers we just got into service, the axes fly for a very long time, and the number of carriers is an order of magnitude higher than ours. Therefore, the joy that we "knocked out" sea-based concessions seems to me baseless. The most important thing that we lose on the RMND is the impossibility of placing and producing such complexes in OWN territory. And partners joyfully deliver the same missiles to our shores (they don’t care anyway, anyway) and our naval carriers for the United States are not a direct threat, alas. request
                1. iliitchitch
                  iliitchitch 20 November 2015 12: 43 New
                  -2
                  It would be much worse if the “perching” along our borders were poked. Well, they would rivet their own, so what? That wretched Europe can also be spread by other means. Nobody threatens the states of "Buyan-M", for this there are other carriers, submarines, for example.
                  1. Army soldier2
                    Army soldier2 20 November 2015 13: 27 New
                    +4
                    Dear iliitchitch, the marine component has not been included in the agreement on the INF Treaty with the submission of the United States. For the simple reason that the basis of the US INF was sea-based, and we have ground-based.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. Vladimirets
                    Vladimirets 20 November 2015 15: 36 New
                    +1
                    Quote: iliitch
                    there are other carriers for this, submarines, for example.

                    Do you know how many submarines we have with cruise missiles? Project 885 - 1 pc, project 636 as many as 4 pieces. Against the United States, this, of course, is power.
                    1. iliitchitch
                      iliitchitch 20 November 2015 18: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: Vladimirets
                      Do you know how many submarines we have with cruise missiles? Project 885 - 1 pc, project 636 as many as 4 pieces. Against the United States, this, of course, is power.


                      And here the cruise missiles submarines? Of course, it’s stupid to drag RSD to the states if strategic missile carriers are available. That is what I had in mind.
                      By the way, I read on the topic of the treaty - we sawed 1846, relocated another part beyond the Urals, states - 846. And still won, because we had nothing to counter the “Pershing”, and the flight time was less than 10 minutes. It’s another matter that it was possible to bargain harder, but there was no reason to expect anything good from a hunchbacked Georgian.
                      1. Vladimirets
                        Vladimirets 20 November 2015 18: 46 New
                        +1
                        Quote: iliitch
                        And here the cruise missiles submarines

                        Well, the conversation was just about the RMDS.
                        Quote: iliitch
                        if strategic missile carriers are available. That is what I had in mind.

                        These are already strategists.
                        Quote: iliitch
                        It’s another matter that it was possible to bargain harder, but there was no reason to expect anything good from a hunchbacked Georgian.

                        About that and speech. drinks
      2. Kunar
        Kunar 20 November 2015 11: 34 New
        +7
        There used to be a “... in Europe” clause. And when they were reminded of the presence of such missiles in France, Germany, England, China, India, Turkey,
        Saudis, Pakistanis - he slipped .... But right now they again combed themselves? "Caliber" didn’t we like? So right now, not the 90s))))) Nobody will cut anything laughing
    2. smel
      smel 20 November 2015 11: 25 New
      +8
      I agree that FSU. But to admit, all the same, it would not hurt that upon the adoption of this treaty there was not a mistake, but a crime on the part of those in power. Some for this would not hurt to pull up for this same FSU. And until the Americans fidget at our borders and in Europe - there will be no discussion on this topic. Here's a thought
    3. remy
      remy 20 November 2015 12: 32 New
      -1
      pind_os have already passed ...
      RS-26 flies both 2000 km and 8000 km ...
    4. Tor5
      Tor5 20 November 2015 12: 46 New
      0
      What only they are not concerned about. But they don’t see a log in their own eyes!
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 20 November 2015 11: 10 New
    11
    Maybe WASHINGTON is better off returning to a missile defense treaty from which the United States did not come out with special ceremony with RUSSIA.
    Then it will not make sense to stir up the agreement on the INF Treaty.
  3. sannych
    sannych 20 November 2015 11: 10 New
    11
    At the request of journalists to provide concrete evidence, Rose said: "We have provided our Russian colleagues with a wealth of information on this subject."
    What is going on with the evidence there? In addition to the "large volume" of social networks and unfounded accusations, at least something can be imagined? The general epidemic of psakism.
  4. venaya
    venaya 20 November 2015 11: 10 New
    +3
    We believe that this agreement is in the interests of both countries, and we will work with Russia to resolve this issue diplomatically ...

    Again, some muck conceived. With these gentlemen you need an eye and an eye, but still they are throwing masters, this is their true calling.
  5. Wedmak
    Wedmak 20 November 2015 11: 11 New
    +3
    Concerned without facts is a sign of brain disease. I'm already scared when they say "we are concerned." The devil knows what it would occur to them, and so the State Department is already saying one thing, the Pentagon is different, Obama is the third. And their hawks are generally shaken all over their heads.
  6. ImPerts
    ImPerts 20 November 2015 11: 13 New
    +5
    It is not profitable for our country to withdraw from the INF Treaty. And it is necessary to negotiate, but link them with the new ABM treaty, with the treaty on the non-proliferation of weapons in space.
    Of course, it must be borne in mind that the United States does only what it considers profitable, and does the same with contracts. But taking into account the new opportunities demonstrated by our armed forces, the hope for conventional weapons, technological advantage, and so on, the Americans no longer have that odds. They will have to be more accommodating.
    1. Altona
      Altona 20 November 2015 11: 31 New
      0
      Quote: ImPerts
      Of course, it must be borne in mind that the United States does only what it considers profitable, and does the same with contracts. But taking into account the new opportunities demonstrated by our armed forces, the hope for conventional weapons, technological advantage, and so on, the Americans no longer have that odds. They will have to be more accommodating.

      ---------------------
      They didn’t have it before, they just used their weapons to wage war, but we don’t ... And as for our weapons, they simply transfer them to a new element base, improving their characteristics along the way, that's all ... And so, it has always been a little better, a little worse ...
  7. Appraiser
    Appraiser 20 November 2015 11: 14 New
    +2
    At this stage, while the zone of interests of the United States is Ukraine and the Baltic States, negotiations on the INF Treaty should not be discussed at all. For starters, let them stop unilaterally supporting the "junta in Kiev" and the "moderate opposition in Syria" and then it will be seen ..... soldier
  8. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 20 November 2015 11: 14 New
    +5
    And Russia is concerned about the American missile defense system in Europe.
    Maybe we’ll start the discussion with their missile defense and the deployment of armed forces on the border with Russia?
    They escalate the situation, and still dare to declare the INF Treaty? Who signed the contract? If EBN, let him talk to him. Insolence is unheard of.
    1. fif21
      fif21 20 November 2015 11: 32 New
      0
      Quote: olimpiada15
      And Russia is concerned about American missile defense in Europe
      Really? Russia doesn’t even care if there are enough cemeteries in Europe to bury the bodies of those who believed that their missile defense systems could save them from the Russian bear.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. Dezinto
    Dezinto 20 November 2015 11: 15 New
    +8
    Well, of course, of course ..... and airplanes with submarines we urgently need to cut, we went through this already:

    - "We believe that this agreement is in the interests of both countries"

  10. Victor-M
    Victor-M 20 November 2015 11: 17 New
    +4
    This agreement is in the interests of the United States

    Keywords. laughing
  11. Altona
    Altona 20 November 2015 11: 23 New
    +1
    Well, straight, the United States itself unilaterally withdrew from a number of treaties ... And why should we stick to the agreements with the United States, when a number of states are armed with the latest modern missiles of various ranges, India and China, under our borders, for example ... Let everyone gather and they will prepare a comprehensive package on the INF Treaty, and then Turkey, Pakistan, China, India, Vietnam, Korea both, Kuwait, the Saudis with the emirates ... Let them gather with such a machine, plus France, Britain, Germany ...
  12. samara-58
    samara-58 20 November 2015 11: 24 New
    +2
    Nuuuuuuuuuuuu arrogant !!! am
  13. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 20 November 2015 11: 25 New
    +4
    on Washington’s elaboration of “economic and military measures”

    Regarding economic measures, it’s clear. And what will military measures be in relation to Russia? Additional deployment of medium- and short-range missiles in Europe? Or maybe they will openly say that the missile defense in Europe is not directed against Iran, which was originally ridiculous, but against us. The United States is still believed - that which is permitted by it cannot be allowed to others in any way. "Hegemon" is a louse.
  14. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 20 November 2015 11: 25 New
    +2
    Well, here the position should be unambiguous. You cut, disarm, as an example and a gesture of goodwill, and we will look, and we will think so good and long. And rockets, and what rockets? We will produce, especially since they are not badly sold.
    With the Anglo-Saxons in general, you can speculate about anything, just do nothing, you do not need to, if you do something after them, or better never.
  15. fif21
    fif21 20 November 2015 11: 25 New
    +1
    In response to the imposition of sanctions, it is necessary to withdraw from all agreements with mattresses restraining the development of our weapons, and lift the moratorium on the death penalty. Meatballs with the entire embassy should be sent 101 km from Moscow and accommodated in tents by a cattle cemetery. wassat
  16. corn
    corn 20 November 2015 11: 32 New
    +3
    Medium-range missile - 1000-5500km (under the INF Treaty). For example, Caliber (according to unverified data 2000-2500km). In light of recent ISIS launches, the United States will certainly cause concern. Vigilantly.
  17. provincial
    provincial 20 November 2015 11: 36 New
    +1
    old giving, but hard to believe.
  18. BOB044
    BOB044 20 November 2015 11: 38 New
    +2
    How from the Caspian rockets hit IG. So right away, let's talk about the RSDM Treaty. Here are cleverly made, they are looking for all the fools.
  19. Hiw
    Hiw 20 November 2015 11: 40 New
    +3
    pushed from them, straight "unexpectedly" pushed to negotiate further, just like hummingbirds flew them poked and there is a "coming" from the smoke of explosions. Perhaps you need to add more smoke, maybe they will even begin to reduce their missiles first ..... .....
  20. sanicha
    sanicha 20 November 2015 11: 40 New
    +2
    Come on, if they fuss, then we are on the right track.
  21. roskot
    roskot 20 November 2015 11: 43 New
    0
    They do not care about Europe. They worry about their bases. And they are stuck in Europe ...
  22. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 20 November 2015 11: 45 New
    -2
    Together with the ABM Treaty can be discussed. Whatever it is, here we go out, here we go in.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 20 November 2015 11: 47 New
    +5
    The US remains “concerned that Russia is not complying with its obligations under the INF Treaty.”
    There were times when they believed and opened the door. Rake a lot, but do not step on them again. And something tells me not to step.
  25. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 20 November 2015 12: 00 New
    +1
    Do not stop the dialogue is of course important! Only in the case of the United States, the dialogue is symbolic. All the same, these comrades do the opposite. Endless mouse fuss resulting in the endless strengthening of armies. Because America does not need peace, it needs leadership.
  26. exalex2
    exalex2 20 November 2015 12: 01 New
    +1
    Worried .. So we are doing everything right. And then I want to, I don’t want, I won’t. I’ll.
  27. beer-youk
    beer-youk 20 November 2015 12: 03 New
    0
    It is their corporate identity to recall contracts in cases where there is no overwhelming advantage, not to mention the backlog!
    Something tells me that in the foreseeable future they will offer a new missile defense and something related to electronic warfare.
  28. roskot
    roskot 20 November 2015 12: 04 New
    +4
    And he still smokes the sky. How many people thanks to him left the earth
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Koshak
      Koshak 20 November 2015 16: 57 New
      +1
      "How many people through they left him "
      Not "thanks", but because of him am
  29. NordUral
    NordUral 20 November 2015 12: 06 New
    0
    It seems to me that no negotiations are necessary.
  30. propolsky
    propolsky 20 November 2015 12: 13 New
    0
    What arrangements ?! The USA has not fulfilled more than half of its obligations. And the treacherous agreement, signed by a very valuable CIA agent Gorbachev, should have been studied by the Russian prosecutor’s office for a long time. He should have already come out, but had not sat down yet!
  31. Mountain spacecraft
    Mountain spacecraft 20 November 2015 12: 20 New
    0
    Yes, they are preoccupied in life. All the time, they are preoccupied with someone and something.
  32. 1536
    1536 20 November 2015 12: 22 New
    +1
    It's time to get rid of the "card (negotiation) dependence." Negotiating (playing) with cheaters is more expensive. "Gorbachev 2.0" is not valid!
  33. perm23
    perm23 20 November 2015 12: 25 New
    +1
    Again they want us to bend under them. They show the world that they are good again and we are so bad. Send them on a long trip in three letters. May we be better off bad for them than dead and broken.
  34. tank64rus
    tank64rus 20 November 2015 12: 26 New
    +1
    Aw, American. You live in 2015, and not in 1995. And the Kremlin is not a drunk EBN, a tough and pragmatic GDP. We already have this and the children understood, but you are still there.
  35. dckx
    dckx 20 November 2015 12: 29 New
    0
    Taking into account the current tension between our countries, I’m more than sure that Danila Masters will not have a stone flower.
  36. ArcanAG
    ArcanAG 20 November 2015 12: 29 New
    0
    In fact, the American SM-3 anti-satellite missiles are just those.
    With a damage height of over 200km, talking about the declared maximum range of 500km is not serious.
  37. AlexTires
    AlexTires 20 November 2015 12: 31 New
    +1
    The INF Treaty is like a bone in the throat of Russia. When this treaty was concluded, the Americans were not so close to our borders. Now everything is different - a picket of American missiles lined up around the perimeter of the Russian border.
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 20 November 2015 12: 50 New
      0
      Quote: AlexTires
      The INF Treaty is like a bone in the throat of Russia.

      Rather, a bone in the throat of the United States, Russia is not going to build picket fences.
  38. andr327
    andr327 20 November 2015 12: 48 New
    +3
    What the hell is the INF Treaty with the United States. We place what we want on our territory and do not touch US territory with medium-range land-based missiles. Therefore, keep silence in a rag.
    Well, the gay people. if you are worried, then let's negotiate with you, but we will recall both missile defense and missile bases in your territories.
  39. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 20 November 2015 12: 50 New
    0
    In general, the INF Treaty is very concerned about Western Europe-Israel. This is the only real opportunity to turn them into dust, they are normally protected from the Caliber, and strategists will not spend much on them. It’s not cold, not hot for the Americans from these missiles; rather, it would even be useful. There was a danger when the USSR could deploy missiles in Cuba, but now, purely allies are being covered.
  40. dezmon
    dezmon 20 November 2015 13: 00 New
    0
    they just fulfill the annual concern plan
  41. bt-50
    bt-50 20 November 2015 13: 05 New
    +2
    Dear Janko partners, be so perpendicular, 1st destroy the missile defense system in Europe and 2nd roll back your NATO blocs from our borders, and then we will see how we deal with short- and medium-range missiles !!!
  42. Neophyte
    Neophyte 20 November 2015 15: 12 New
    0
    For the Yankees, the danger of our RMBNs is expressed in the senselessness of missile defense at our borders! Their doctrine is that the more missile defense there is, the greater the chance to break through our defense. Therefore, the Yankees are furious, offering protracted negotiations on reduction! No luck to them, Gorbachev is gone!
  43. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 18: 52 New
    0
    Quote: GYGOLA
    Oops ... a mistake.

    They FSUs, not us. In our case, such missiles will appear near by, and not with them ...

    Quote: 79807420129
    Do they themselves abide by the agreements?

    You will be surprised, but all US, START, and INF Treaty treaties are being respected by the United States.

    Quote: oleg-gr
    The Americans are doing everything to bring to the fore the tertiary issues.

    Nichrome yourself secondary questions? Ukraine and Syria are secondary. And missiles in which case within 3 minutes of approaching Moscow are by no means secondary issues.

    Quote: iliitch
    As far as I remember, RSMD with a range of 500 to 5000 km of land-based are prohibited under the agreement.

    Not quite right. 500 to 5500 km

    Quote: iliitch
    Firstly, 2500 winged axes do not fly
    So our "Gauges" do not fly with conventional GM.
    The tactical Tomahawk of Block III flies at 1600-1850, Block IV - at 1850 km (according to some reports at 2400)

    Quote: iliitch
    and 1000 km to the border, if desired, we simply will not allow them.

    Why not let it go?

    Quote: iliitch
    Secondly, one boat less than 1000 tons with a displacement of eight "calibers" will drown any AUG, and they won’t be able to get it.

    Rave ?? I understand, a squeeze ....

    Quote: Kunar
    Previously, there was a clause "... in Europe." And when they were reminded of the presence of such missiles in France, Germany, England, China, India, Turkey, the Saudis, Pakistanis - he popped up ....

    All of the above to the contract no side. The agreement is Soviet-American.

    Quote: The same Lech
    Maybe WASHINGTON is better off returning to a missile defense treaty from which the United States did not come out with special ceremony with RUSSIA.

    The Americans withdrew from the ABM treaty on completely legal grounds, in accordance with the corresponding article of the treaty. So the question of ceremonies is no side here

    Quote: ImPerts
    It is not profitable for our country to withdraw from the INF Treaty. And it is necessary to negotiate, but link them with the new ABM treaty, with the treaty on the non-proliferation of weapons in space.

    It is necessary, but then the negotiations will drag on for decades. For to try to combine incompatible agreements - Sisyphean labor .... Anyway, everyone will be with something and disagree.
  44. Old26
    Old26 20 November 2015 18: 53 New
    0
    Quote: ImPerts
    Of course, it must be borne in mind that the United States does only what it considers profitable, and does the same with contracts.

    As for the fact that they are doing what is beneficial - I agree. As for the fact that they do this with contracts - no. The only Treaty from which they emerged is the ABM Treaty. Came out on completely legal grounds and in accordance with the provisions of the contract

    Quote: Altona
    The United States unilaterally withdrew from a series of treaties ...

    Sound out which ones. And the second thing, what prevents Russia from withdrawing from the ABM treaty? Have not you thought?

    Quote: Altona
    And why should we adhere to the agreements with the United States, when a number of states are already armed with the latest modern missiles of various ranges, India and China, under our borders, for example ...

    What about the Americans? We must take care of this and bring it not only to the Americans, but also to these countries. And we have enough of them at the borders. China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel. The Americans are just not in the business. They have no medium-range missiles at present

    Quote: propolsky
    What arrangements ?! The USA has not fulfilled more than half of its obligations

    Sound what ...

    Quote: ArcanAG
    In fact, the American SM-3 anti-satellite missiles are just those. With a damage height of over 200km, talking about the declared maximum range of 500km is not serious.

    Are not. Read the AGREEMENT, not its free statement in the media

    Quote: andr327
    What the hell is the INF Treaty with the United States. We place what we want on our territory and do not touch US territory with medium-range land-based missiles. Therefore, keep silence in a rag.

    And where they want to place too. Under the "agreement with its NATO allies." For example, in the eastern part of Estonia? And who after that will be silent in a rag? We or they? They then increase the production of RSD in just a few months. And we are with one factory that makes both the Mace, and Yars, and now Rubezh and Barguzin - in how many decades will we deploy the right amount of infantry fighting vehicles ??? Maybe you should think first? And then for the sake of pluses you are carrying nonsense ...

    Quote: bt-50
    Dear Janko partners, be so perpendicular, 1st destroy the missile defense system in Europe and 2nd roll back your NATO blocs from our borders, and then we will see how we deal with short- and medium-range missiles !!!

    Wow, what warlike we are. Let the steam go ... And teach the materiel about missile defense in Europe ... The Americans and NATO are already scared from this statement of yours and will come tomorrow to ask for forgiveness ...
  45. mamont5
    mamont5 21 November 2015 06: 18 New
    0
    Quote: 79807420129
    The Americans are again preoccupied .... Do they themselves abide by the agreements? But then they have no equal in their fingers to bend like a fan, go in the ass striped-eared.

    In case of preservation of the contract, its full processing is necessary, as in its present form, it does not correspond to the balance of power in the world.